I Kings 2:10-12 and 3:3-14 contain a summary of the death of David and the rise of Solomon to be king, and the public acclamation of Solomon as king and his prayer for wisdom.
I Kings 2: 10-12, we have the summary of the reign of David and the rise of Solomon as king. 10 Then, after he served with Solomon as co-regent for an undisclosed period, David slept with his ancestors, and they buried him in the city of David. 11 The time that David reigned over Israel was forty years, a number that may be typological, indicating a long but undetermined period, as with the flood of Noah and the years of desert wanderings by the Israelites with Moses; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three years in Jerusalem. 12 Therefore, Solomon sat on the throne of his father David as sole monarch; and his kingdom was in principle firmly established.
I offer a brief reflection on death and dying. If you are a first responder at the scene of an accident, and the person asks you if he or she is dying, and you know the answer is affirmative, what do you say? One such person learned that in most cases, one should tell the truth. He learned that when people know, a sense of peace and acceptance comes over them. Some experience regret and the hope for forgiveness. He discovered that for many, the littlest things they had done for someone about whom they cared gave them calm and peace.[1] What if we think of death not as a door slammed shut, but as an opening to eternity? The dying are part of us. We need to be sure that we do not treat them as if they were something essentially different from us. We need to be present with them with open minds and truly listen to them, rather than assume we know what they are thinking or feeling. Each dying person is unique. Further, the dying remind us of our mortality. Such a reminder may cause us to refuse identification with the dying. It will take courage for us to identify with them in their time of grieving, regret, longing for forgiveness, and acceptance of their death. They may feel physical discomfort and pain. They are dealing with the unknown. The person has likely experienced this unknown with fear in the past. Its certainty now stirs up fear as well as longing for some assurance. They likely are dealing with loneliness and boredom. They are grieving the loss of doing the things they once enjoyed. They are learning to let go of their cherished independence and learning to depend upon others and ultimately learning to depend upon God. Our presence to the dying can become a channel of divine grace to the person.[2]
Of all the characters portrayed in Scripture, it is hard to find one more complex than King David is. Although David is the great hero who rose to power from humble beginnings, replacing his flawed predecessor Saul and salvaging the fledgling institution of the monarchy from its ignominious beginning, Scripture never attempts to canonize David or disguise his flaws. It does not excuse his mistakes or condemn him for them. It simply lets the story of David's life unfold - his loyalty to Saul, his deep and abiding friendship with Jonathan, his tumultuous marriage to Michal, his victories on the battlefield and his failures at home.
The text calls David the servant of the Lord throughout, suggesting that the stance of David in his life was submission to the Lord. David is successful in battle. However, the text does not view him as successful in his family life.
David's greatest failures are often the result of inaction. He does nothing when his son Amnon rapes his daughter Tamar. Nor does he condemn Absalom for murdering Amnon in revenge (2 Samuel 13). The story of his relationship with Bathsheba also begins with a reference to inaction on David's part. Although it is the "time when kings go out to battle," David remains in Jerusalem while his nephew Joab (1 Chronicles 2:16) goes across the Jordan to lead the siege of Rabbah. Throughout the story, David's activities with Bathsheba are juxtaposed with Joab and Uriah's activities on the battlefield. They are fighting during this "time of going out [to battle]" while he is getting his first view of Bathsheba "late one afternoon."
The story of the rise of kingship might derive from the period of Solomon, designed to make it clear that both David and Solomon had a legitimate claim to the throne. Possibly Abiathar the priest, as he was in David's court, may have compiled the material germane to Saul and David.
The fact that Israel experienced sacral kingship is due to David. He united charismatic and institutional conceptions of religion. His actions reveal a breadth of feeling and thought with a capacity for working otherwise incompatible elements together. He worked with priests, he brought the Ark to Jerusalem, he appointed his sons to the priesthood, and wanted to build a Temple. He consolidated the tribes by making covenants with the elders. He incorporated conquered neighboring states. He made a clever choice of capital. He organized a standing army. He developed his own attendants at court. He managed to keep prophets on his side. The reign of David demonstrated the possibility of the office of king within the framework of the religion of the people of the Lord. In the end, the monarchy would alter their conception of the manner and purpose of divine activity, especially as an ordered activity within history. The normal administration and institution of justice and defense of the land came under divine providence. It would lead to a new view of the development of the forms of religious life, where one could enquire of the Lord through established ordinances of religious practice. Institutional religion would make great strides.
The early monarchical period was an era of vitality and productivity, when there was an intellectual creative upsurge that opened the way to completely new dimensions of life. It must also have been a time when the “soil” within Israel was ready for this “new spirit.” The scholars of the period created three narratives, the story of the rise of David to power, the history of the succession of David, and the J document. What was new was that Israel now found itself able to shape history into great complexes. It no longer simply remembered isolated events basic to the history or strung them together for purposes of recital in worship. It now presented the history in its broad connections. The most important prerequisite for this new way of seeing and presenting history was a certain detachment from it, mentally, if not just chronologically. It made itself the object of consideration. This ability to deal with extensive complexes of connected history and not just episodes is one of the most momentous advances in humanity understanding itself, since its effects upon the spiritual development of the West is large. The context of this development at this early stage of monarchy was to justify the rise of monarchy and in particular the rise of David. This justification occurs within a larger justification of the rise of monarchy and the judgment of the Lord upon Israel that came upon it through exile. In agreement with Eichrodt, Israel no longer saw the Lord as active primarily in miracles or dramatic events, but now in the field of daily lives. This new way of portraying the action of the Lord in history led to a new technique in narrative. It did not arise by chance. It was an expression of a profound spiritual transformation. It led to re-thinking the relationship of the people of the Lord with nature and history. It became secularized, releasing both from “sacral orders.” One could now see the figures of these stories in a demythologized and secular world. The action of the Lord embraces every department of life, the secular as well as sacred. In fact, the authors display eagerness to discover the action of the Lord in the secular world. The Lord is the cause of all things. Further, the exercise of the Lords’ action is chiefly in the sphere of the human heart. As a result, the scholars started putting individuals at the center of the history of the Lord’s dealing with Israel. It began exploring what we can now identify as psychology. It identifies friendship (David and Jonathan), the motivations of Saul, and the flow of David toward adultery. It also embellished the narrative by means of speeches. We can see in all of this a new appreciation of the human, developed fully in the time of Solomon, is a form of humanism. [3]
We also need to discuss the anointed of Israel, the king. The narrative regarding David shows the anointed in all the frailty of his human nature, and on occasion portray him in scandalous situations. Therefore, Israel was in no danger of copying the surrounding nations in their view of the king as an incarnation of the deity, as was done in Egypt. They demythologized the king. David becomes king through human initiative. Only later does Nathan offer divine confirmation through a covenant with David and his descendants. The tension in this history as shown in I and II Samuel and the early chapters of I Kings is that of succession to the throne, just as earlier, in Genesis, the issue was an heir within the clan, and in judges the issue was who shall be the “judge” to lead the tribal federation. What chiefly intrigues the theologian who reads this history is the thoroughgoing worldliness of the picture. It develops characters that have a history. In the center of it all stands David, a man with strong inner antagonisms. He is a diplomat with far-sighted genius, but also driven by many passions. He was also capable of generous impulses and had dignity in misfortune. He was attached to his sons to the extent of weakness and guilt, bringing his throne to the brink of ruin. Throughout the story of David, they are not “religious characters.” The author allows the thoughtful reader to see the full range of love and hate, intrigue, ambition, humiliations, cunning, and tests of loyalty. The freedom that this historian reserved to himself in his treatment of the king is something unique in the ancient East. Yet, nobility pervades the entire work. The story is one of human beings fulfilling their destinies. The older narratives thought of the action of the Lord in the form of miracles and in the charisma of a leader, in catastrophes, or other significant manifestations of divine power. The story has changed so that divine action is in the sphere of secular history, in which divine activity is behind the scenes. [4]
David is the first human in literature. Further, he is the first true individual, the first “modern” human. His nature and individuality drive his behavior at every crucial juncture in the story. He is one who shapes the way he acts in the world. The gradual disclosure of the complexity of motivation and ambiguity of action we find in David can strike us as somehow modern. Yet, the story also claims that God has something important to do with the uniqueness of David, his shaping and being shaped. Much of the depth and complexity of David has to do with the tension between wills both divine and human. The story is subject to the mysterious underpinnings of motivations at war with themselves, of aspects of personality and competencies in conflict with each other, with the complexity of choicemaking compounded by forces curtailing or directing such choices. Time is open ended, a corollary of a capacity for moral growth for both God and human being, a capacity to change directions in a drastic way for the sake of a greater good. [5]
Who is David? Nabal asks this question in I Samuel 25:2. Saul wonders in I Samuel 17:55, “Whose son is this man?” In I Samuel 17:58, Saul asks David directly, “Whose son are you, young man?” Even David asks in II Samuel 7:18, “Who am I, O Lord God that you have brought me this far?” David appears contradictory in action and so hidden in motive. How can he serve as the ideal monarch of Israel? David moved the heart of God. Coming to know David may help explain God at some level. God will choose Saul, and then unchoose him in favor of a better man, who chooses well and poorly, but emerges as superior to Saul. We are learning about the character of both David and God.
In I Kings 3:3 is a note on worship in high places. 3 Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of his father David. One should also note the rarity of references in the Old Testament of love for Yahweh.[6] Here would be the first act of wisdom shown by Solomon. The text describes him as a pious young man who seeks to be the same type of devout and beloved king as was his father. The text portrays David as completely upright and devout — the model of a holy king whom Solomon wishes to emulate. Only, he sacrificed and offered incense at the high places. This comment reflects part of the issue Solomon had in his politically arranged marriages. While he may have sacrificed properly, he made space for his wives to offer their sacrifices to their gods as well. He continued the ancient Canaanite practice. To the author, Solomon’s main shortcoming is his habit of worshiping on high places. Prior to the construction of the temple in Jerusalem, however, high places were completely acceptable places to worship Yahweh. Samuel presides over his own high place in Ramah and even anoints Saul king there (I Samuel 9). We will have another example in I Kings 3:4-15.
In I Kings 3:4-15, is the prayer for wisdom by Solomon. Material from other countries of the time suggests it was typical of the king to offer sacrifice and receive dreams or visions. Note Thothmos IV (1300s, in which a dream justifies his rise to power over the older son) for a close parallel.[7] I Kings 3:4-15 share the divine authentication of the Succession of Solomon in the dream at Gibeon. There needs to be legitimization of the kingship of Solomon. The judges were recognized by the people, David had a covenant at Hebron. However, the kingship of Solomon would be based upon the divine covenant with David and his descendants. This choice is in the context of the Lord’s choice of Israel. John Gray (Old Testament Library) accepts Hermann’s view that the text is Solomonic, by comparison with Egyptian texts of the king legitimizing claim to the throne and new revelations about administration. We can check ANET, p 449, inscription of Sesosthis I, Thothmes III, and Thothemes IV. There are some parallels with messianic passages like Isaiah 9 and 11 with verses 6, 9, 11-12. We find a shortened account in I Chronicles 1:7-13.
4 The king went to Gibeon, northwest of Jerusalem, to sacrifice there, for that was the principal high place; Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. However, what the author knows about Solomon, is that although Solomon is sacrificing to Yahweh on the high place at Gibeon, later he will build high places for his wives’ foreign gods and make sacrifices at those places himself (I Kings 11:1-13). The Chronicler shows, however, that Solomon was only worshiping Israel’s God at Gibeon by insisting that the altars at Gibeon at that time were the original altars of the wilderness tabernacle, which had been left at Gibeon when David moved the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (II Chronicles 1:3-6). Solomon, to offer divine authentication of the succession of Solomon to the throne, goes to Gibeon to offer a sacrifice at “the principal high place.” We need to think of this in terms of David receiving acclamation by the people, Saul received authentication through Samuel and the people. During the judges period, the people offered authentication. Authentication occurs here as well, saying that the basis of the kingship of Solomon is the covenant with David. 5 At Gibeon, the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night. Ancient ritual was that the king would go to a sanctuary with the purpose of having a dream, the primary way God revealed himself. This leads some to suppose that Solomon was practicing a type of ritual known as an incubation. A person sleeps in a temple or holy place hoping for a revelatory dream from the God of the shrine. Samuel receives a revelatory dream from Yahweh while sleeping in the temple at Shiloh (I Samuel 3), and there appears to be another reference to such activity in Amos 2:8. Amos is criticizing the practice as an unnecessary form of supererogationism (the act of doing more than duty would require); therefore, it appears that only the most zealous persons, as this text depicts Solomon to be, engaged in this practice. God said, “Ask what I should give you.” 6 And Solomon said, “You have shown great and steadfast love to your servant my father David, because he walked before you in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward you; and you have kept for him this great and steadfast love, and have given him a son to sit on his throne today. In Isaiah 9:7, we also have a reference to the throne of David, which will have endless peace since the Lord will establish it in justice and righteousness. The reference to a child born to rule is in 9:6. Isaiah 11 refers to a child arising from David who will have a spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, and might. He will judge with righteousness and wear righteousness and faithfulness as if they were clothing. Despite similarity with Isaiah 11:2, 4-5, Gray (Old Testament Library) prefers to see this as a genuine Solomonic material used to legitimize the kingship of Solomon. These parallels make it tempting to understand this verse as part of the voice of the Deuteronomic Historian. 7 Now, O Lord my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David, although I am only a little child. It seems hard to verify this statement in the text. Solomon may be young, but he is old enough to be married. Jeroboam is 41 years old when he is king, and the reign of Solomon was 40 years. He may well have been below adult age when he became co-regent with his dying father. However, the texts do not give his age at the time of his ascension to the throne. Yet, Isaiah 9:6 refers to a child born to us. I do not know how to go out or come in. One should not understand it as some false claim of feeblemindedness. Others look at it differently. When paired together and placed in a royal context, the verbs yatz’ah and ba’ah imply “going out and coming in” in a military sense — namely as a leader of an army (see also 1 Samuel 8:20 and II Samuel 11:1). In this case, Solomon is making an entirely accurate statement of what he understands to be his main weakness as a monarch. Unlike his father the great warrior, Solomon has no military experience. To make matters worse, he has just executed the second best general Judah ever had, namely, his uncle Joab. 8 And your servant is in the midst of the people whom you have chosen, a great people, so numerous they cannot be numbered or counted. The text places the covenant with David in the larger context of the covenant of Yahweh with Israel. 9 Give your servant therefore an understanding mind (lev shome’a, listening heart) to govern (lishpot, judge in the sense of leading, guiding, administering, or ruling) your people, able to discern between good and evil (focusing on wisdom in making judgments); for who can govern this your great people?” Here is a second expression of his wisdom. He asked God for it. Isaiah 9:3 refers to the multiplication of the nation and its joy. Isaiah 9:6 says a child born to govern will be a wonderful counselor. In Isaiah 11:2, the child from David will have a spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, and knowledge. Imagine God coming to you in a dream when you were, say, in your late teens or early 20s and offering you anything you might ask! (v. 5). Chances are that wisdom would not be on the list. Yet, this request has the purpose of making up the lack of experience he had with an infusion of divine wisdom.
10 It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. Thus, the solution to Solomon’s problems as a young man suddenly on the throne of his father’s kingdom is to pray to the Lord for wisdom. This is the first biblical passage in the canonical text to introduce this theme, which will become the hallmark of Solomon’s reign. In fact, the remaining account of his monarchy (I Kings 3-11) has repeated stories that highlight the wisdom of Solomon that made him world-famous and successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. The fact that he was not a warrior, then, was totally irrelevant given his ability to expand his kingdom through wise decisions about political balances internally (1 Kings 4; 9:15-28) and foreign alliances externally (1 Kings 3:1; 5; 10; 11:1-3).11 God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches, or for the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, 12 I now do according to your word. Indeed, I give you a wise and discerning mind; no one like you has been before you and no one like you shall arise after you. In Isaiah 9:6, a child given to the people of God will have authority as wonderful counselor. In Isaiah 11:2, a child from David will have the spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, and knowledge. He will make decisions based upon righteousness. 13 I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor all your life; no other king shall compare with you. 14 If you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, the reverence for the Lord and knowledge of the law will lead to the wisdom he seeks, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your life.” Reference to long life may be a Deuteronomic expansion but may be typical of early Israel as well. In context, the Lord grants wisdom, riches, glory, and a long life, with 3:16-10:29 demonstrating how the Lord fulfilled these promises. In verse 15, Solomon awoke and returned to Jerusalem. He went to the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord. He offered sacrifices. This may refer to a common meal the king shared with the people.
This passage finalizes the transition of royal power from David to Solomon. In context, Chapter 2 portrays Solomon as the shrewd political realist, while Solomon here is the humble seeker of wisdom. As is often the case in the character studies we find in the Bible, the text does not attempt to harmonize the complexities of the political leaders of Israel. The complex struggles within them are mirror the complexities within us. Clearly, the peaceful nature of the story here belies the bloody and destructive path that Solomon had to tread to succeed David on the throne. However, this gory background to Solomon’s ascension is hardly hinted at in I Kings 3:4-14. The facts of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his later responsibility for the death of her husband Uriah the Hittite are not mentioned. The subtle irony is that both Solomon and David are portrayed as perfectly pious here, when in fact both had serious theological and ethical flaws. Solomon appears as pious as was his father. The text simply does not point out the fact that both miss the mark of true faithfulness toward God. The content of Solomon’s prayer is humbler and more self-deprecating than one would expect on the lips of Israel’s first true empire builder. However, the actions taken on his part to consolidate his hold on power (executing his brother, his uncle, Saul’s remaining descendants, and exiling the priestly supporters of his rival, I Kings 2) depict him as a perceptive political operator. Even if those around Solomon orchestrated these actions, the text portrays him as one with steely resolve and a clear knowledge of what was required of him politically. Thanks to his humble prayer to God for wisdom, rather than for the selfish things others might have asked for in his place, Solomon appears here as a pious man who simply wants to serve God and knows that wisdom would be his best tool in that task. Readers must set aside the fact that he had already taken the lives of his enemies by his own hand prior to this encounter with God.
So how can we exercise wisdom? Knowledge acquired is not necessarily wisdom dispensed. Wisdom is no mere intellectual exercise. Wisdom requires knowledge, of course, but is also a matter of tapping into our intuition, imagination, and heart.[8]
We can start with what wisdom is not. Clearly it is not the same thing as intelligence. Intelligence is just processing speed. It is better to have more rather than less but having more does not guarantee that you will do anything good or constructive with it. Next comes knowledge; wisdom is more than mere knowledge. Knowledge is the possession of bits of information. But information alone does not let you accomplish anything more significant than an impressive showing on Jeopardy! The next step up is understanding as we see how facts relate to each other, grasp their meaning in the big picture of the totality of the universe. Now we are getting somewhere. But we still do not necessarily have wisdom. So, what is wisdom? Here is one definition: Wisdom is the inclination and ability to use our intelligence, knowledge, and understanding in creative and loving ways for the benefit of our fellow creatures. It starts, according to Solomon, with the fear of the Lord.[9]
Researchers suggest that there are three kinds of wisdom. General wisdom that understands the “fundamental pragmatics of life” and the human condition. Personal wisdom in which the individual has perspective on themself and develops coping mechanisms for dealing with difficult circumstances, as well as understanding and empathizing with the circumstances of others. Self-transcendence, which develops in people who are deeply spiritual and have a deep connection to past and future generations. While general wisdom would seem to be easy to cultivate, personal and self-transcendent wisdom require an extended process of learning, practice and awareness of oneself and the world. Much of that learning comes through experiences of hardship that, while not intentionally sought, serve to help wise people rethink how they see themselves and the world. The hard truth is that wisdom often comes at a price but is of inestimable value once gained.
We might think of hardship as primarily a product of external circumstances like tragedy, grief, or pain. But another kind of hardship comes from choosing to follow a path that diverges from conventional wisdom. In some ways, this is an even more difficult kind of hardship because it is self-inflicted or, if you are a Christian, it is the narrow way demanded by Christ: the way of the cross and self-denial. This is the kind of wisdom Solomon will have to learn in today’s text: wisdom that is divinely given but must be lived out in obedience to God.
God, of course, is the author of wisdom and seeks to impart it to humans but divine wisdom usually does not come with shortcuts. Adam and Eve listened to the shortcut the snake offered to them in Genesis 3, preferring to obtain the divine knowledge of good and evil by eating some fruit, rather than by receiving wisdom and experiencing it through an intimate relationship with God. They would have to learn wisdom the hard way, and we have been doing it ever since.
I think some examples of wisdom might help us.
In Thornton Wilder’s famous play, Our Town, we meet a young woman named Emily Webb, who tragically dies in childbirth with much of her life still ahead of her. As the play ends, Emily’s ghost is allowed one last look back at her hometown of Grover’s Corners, New Hampshire, before moving on to the afterlife. It is time for her to move on, she knows, but Emily lingers. She turns around to look, one last time. “Wait!” she says to the Stage Manager — that all-knowing character, in that play, who seems to know how everything works — “One more look. Good-bye, Good-bye, world. Good-bye, Grover's Corners … Mama and Papa. Good-bye to clocks ticking … And Mama’s sunflowers. And food and coffee. And new-ironed dresses and hot baths … And sleeping and waking up. Oh, earth, you’re too wonderful for anybody to realize you.” Emily turns, then, to the Stage Manager. She asks him, through her tears, “Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it? Every, every minute?” No,” answers the Stage Manager. “The saints and poets, maybe — they do some.” Wise people, those saints and poets …
Wisdom came to horror novelist Stephen King alongside a highway in rural Maine, where he lives. He was out walking, one day, along the shoulder of the road when he was hit by a truck — with a drunk driver at the wheel — and nearly died. After a long process of recuperation, he was invited to give the commencement address at Vassar College. “What will you do?” he asked the graduates. “Well, I'll tell you one thing you’re not going to do, and that’s take it with you. I’m worth I don’t exactly know how many millions of dollars — I’m still in the Third World compared to Bill Gates, but on the whole I’m doing okay — and a couple of years ago I found out what ‘you can't take it with you’ means. I found out while I was lying in the ditch at the side of a country road, covered with mud and blood and with the tibia of my right leg poking out the side of my jeans like the branch of a tree taken down in a thunderstorm. I had a MasterCard in my wallet, but when you’re lying in the ditch with broken glass in your hair, no one accepts MasterCard. If you find yourself in the ER with a serious infarct, or if the doctor tells you yeah, that lump you felt in your breast is a tumor, you can’t wave your Diners Club at it and make it go away. … We all know that life is ephemeral, but on that particular day and in the months that followed, I got a painful but extremely valuable look at life's simple backstage truths. We come in naked and broke. We may be dressed when we go out, but we’re just as broke. Warren Buffet? Going to go out broke. Bill Gates? Going to go out broke. Tom Hanks? Going out broke. … Steve King? Broke. You guys? Broke. Not a crying dime. And how long in between? How long have you got to be in the chips? ‘I’m aware of the time passin’ by, they say in the end it’s the blink of an eye.’ That's how long. Just the blink of an eye.”
After finishing his commencement address, King did something spontaneous. He announced that he was making a gift of $20,000 to a local social-service agency near the college. He challenged his listeners to take up a collection to match his gift, and a great many of them did make contributions. That is the sort of action wisdom can produce — the wisdom that comes of numbering our days.[10]
In 2002, there was a groundbreaking exhibit in New York about the great scientific genius of Albert Einstein. Although we often assume Einstein’s thoughts are too complex for mere mortals to master, The New Yorker reports that this assumption is false. Walk in the door of this exhibit, and a view of yourself as seen through a black hole immediately greets you. It is not a pretty sight. Then, as you work your way through the displays, you begin to understand how light travels, why time warps, and what makes stars shine. You discover that one could convert the mass of a single penny, under the right conditions, into enough energy to fuel New York City for two years. Of course, to accomplish this feat, you would need to crank up your oven to a temperature hotter than the sun.
Most amazing of all is what Albert Einstein managed to accomplish in a single year. In 1905, at the age of 26, he published three groundbreaking papers that provided the blueprint for much of modern science. The first was on the motion of particles suspended in liquid. The second was on the photoelectric effect, the release of electrons from metal when light shines on it. Last and perhaps most famous, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, which led to the shocking conclusion that time is not constant, and neither is weight nor mass.
It is still hard to believe that Einstein’s work in that single year led to the discovery of, among other things, X-ray crystallography, DNA, the photoelectric effect, vacuum tubes, transistors and the mechanics of the information age.
Richard P. Feynman explained that Einstein’s general theory of relativity does away with the need for a force of gravity. Time and distance rates depend on the place in space you measure time and on the time. In this theory, the effects of gravitation are local, not distant. Nature does what is easiest. In this case, objects in the universe simply respond to the contours of space in their immediate vicinity. The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a fixed observer as for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him, so that we have not any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion. Newton’s second law F=d(mv)/dt assumed that m is a constant. The famous formula, E=MC², modifies what Newton thought of as constant. Einstein said that the mass of a body increases with velocity. The theory of relativity changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. The formula for relativistic mass says that the inertia is very great when v is nearly as great as c. Space and time are relative to the observer. The speed of light relativizes both space and time. Experiments proved that light did not travel in space in a straight line. As one advances toward the speed of light, time slows down. The law of gravitation has an elegantly simple principle. Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force that for any two bodies is proportional to the mass of each and varies inversely as the square of the distance between them. If we add the fact that an object responds to a force by accelerating in the direction of the force by an amount that is inversely proportional to the mass of the object, we shall have said everything required. Einstein modified Newton’s law of gravitation to consider the theory of relativity. Anything that has energy has mass. Even light has a mass. For consistency in our physical theories, it would be important to see whether we can modify Newton’s law modified to Einstein’s law to be consistent with the uncertainty principle. Scientists have not completed this last modification. All of this had a practical effect upon our view of the universe. Light travels in accord with the curvature of the universe. This discovery has led to a revision of our view universe, especially as it begins (and is therefore finite), as it matures (the universe grows), and as it moves toward its end (like any finite thing).
Of course, Einstein’s work at that time also laid the groundwork for the atomic bomb. He did not like that. When America dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Einstein’s immediate response was “Vey iz mir” ... “Woe is me.” I have read enough about this incident not to have this reaction. Truman agonized over the decision. He knew a ground battle would be devastating to both sides. He made a judgment he thought best, considering the information he had. People have started second-guessing this decision, of course, but we must always remember that people must often make judgments that will be difficult to determine as to whether it was the right decision.
In any case, Einstein was one of the smartest humans in history, and yet he ended his career feeling that his creations had slipped beyond his control. The pro-bomb position that he took during the Second World War turned into pacifism by the end of his life. The mushroom cloud that validated so many brilliant theories brought no joy to this genius, but instead only woe. “Vey iz mir.”
The point here is that regardless of your view of whether dropping the bomb was wise, Einstein came to think of the answer as “No.” For him, the best knowledge and the best wisdom can turn out not to be so wise or knowledgeable. He thought he was part of something wise, but came to think of his involvement in the bomb as questionable. In his words, Vey iz mir!
The experience of Einstein with the bomb shows how difficult it can be to determine whether a decision is wise.
It is essential to have a discerning mind and to understand that human wisdom can lead both to good and to evil. Experiments on stem cells derived from human embryos can unlock cures for disease but may also undermine the dignity of embryonic life. Advances in computer technology create amazing tools for education and business but produce incredible amounts of toxic waste when people throw away outdated computers. The clearing of land and the building of homes can provide wonderful quality of life for new generations, but these actions can also degrade the environment and reduce biodiversity.
How do we discern whether our actions are going to lead to good or to evil?
I offer two prayers.
O Wisdom, coming forth from the mouth of the Most High, pervading and permeating all creation, you order all things with strength and gentleness; come now and teach us the way to salvation.[11]
God of knowledge and wisdom, you have given us grace to discern the way we should go amid all the paths of the world. You have shown us wisdom and understanding and offered us the chance to choose good over evil. We have not always been as thoughtful in our discernment as we could be. We have sometimes let others choose our path for us. Teach us to have wise and understanding minds, so that we may be responsible members in community. Let us not focus on riches or possessions, but strive only to serve your people.
[1] Matthew O'Reilly is a critical care EMT in Suffolk County, New York. He has been a first responder in all kinds of accidents and catastrophes. In a video talk he gave for the TED website, he tells of responding to incidents where people are so badly injured that they have only minutes left to live, and there's nothing O'Reilly, or anyone else on the scene, can do to change that outcome. These victims sometimes ask O'Reilly directly, "Am I dying?" The first few times he encountered such situations, O'Reilly lied, thinking that comforting the dying person was preferable to telling the truth. "I was afraid if I told them the truth, that they would die in terror, in fear, just grasping for those last moments of life," he explained. However, being straightforward with one such victim convinced him that truthfulness is the better response in all such cases. He was called to a motorcycle accident where the rider had suffered severe injuries. As O'Reilly assessed the man, he realized that there was nothing that could be done for him. Then the rider asked directly, "Am I going to die?" For some reason, O'Reilly answered honestly, and the man's reaction surprised him. He simply laid back and showed no terror at all. "As I looked into his eyes," O'Reilly said, "I saw inner peace and acceptance."
In subsequent incidents when O'Reilly could not save badly injured people, he has told the truth. In almost every case, the victims have displayed a sense of calmness and acceptance, and that seems to be common, regardless of the person's religious belief or cultural background. These dying people sometimes express regret about something in their life and voice a hope for forgiveness; some say they want to be remembered; others that they want to know their life had meaning and that they had not wasted their life on meaningless tasks. But almost none seem to be afraid or resisting their imminent demise.
O'Reilly concludes,
"I have come to realize, regardless of the circumstance, [imminent death is] generally met with peace and acceptance, that it's the littlest things you brought into the world that give you peace in those final moments."
Indeed, as Elisabeth Kübler-Ross taught us, grieving people, including those mourning their own impending death, typically vacillate, or wander, through such stages as denial, anger, bargaining and depression before arriving at acceptance. Some never arrive at acceptance.
[2] --William M. Clements, "Dying, pastoral care of," Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling, Rodney J. Hunter, ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990). When it comes to thinking about death, whether our own or that of a friend or loved one, we Christians understand it not as a slammed door, but as an open portal into eternity with God.
William M. Clements, a clinical supervisor in pastoral counseling at the Clinebell Institute, has written helpfully about caring for the dying. Although he was addressing clergy in terms of their providing pastoral care, what he says can apply to anyone who seeks to be helpfully present with a dying friend or loved one. In such a case, says Clements, a principal task "is to include the dying, not separate them as if they were different in some basic sense."
He also says that while we normally assume there are some common themes and stages among the dying, "it is best to enter each relationship with a dying person with an open mind." In other words, we ought not to assume that we know what the person is feeling, and neither should we impose our theological understandings on them. Rather, we should come ready to listen and pay attention to the dying person, remembering that he or she is unique. We need to be willing to help the other person deal with what is going on in his or her own terms, not merely within the framework of how we think it should go.
Of course, when with someone who is dying, we are often reminded of our own mortality, and such awareness is sometimes described as an ego chill. That chill, in Clements' words, is "a shivering up and down the emotional spine." Because that chill is uncomfortable, we may instinctively attempt to minimize any identifying with the dying person, but we need to step beyond that so we can be truly present with the one we have come to visit or care for.
Clements goes on to mention five things with which the dying typically wrestle, especially when they have some time to process what is happening to them. These five realities exist independent of whatever stage they may be in.
First, the dying are likely going through hard work, coping with pain, discomfort and loss of strength, as well as with the emotional impact associated with all of those things.
Second, as already mentioned, the dying person is dealing with the unknown. As the average lifespan has increased, death has become largely a phenomenon of old age, often occurring in locations apart from the family home -- such as hospitals or nursing homes. Thus, the dying person has few models of "how to die." Clements says:
"Where the unknown has been experienced in the past as threat, then the unknowns of dying will probably arouse fear until enough experience has been gained to lend predictability to the situation."
Third, the dying may be experiencing loneliness, especially since they may not be in a position to mix with other people as they had when in health. They may even be bedridden. As the dying process advances, the time eventually comes when the person has less need for interaction with others, but that is usually near the actual point of death. In the meantime, says Clements, "Learning how to cope with loneliness when one's usual mechanisms for coping are blocked can be a significant aspect of the dying process." Thus, your presence as a visitor can help ameliorate the loneliness and boredom of their social isolation, as long as you are sensitive to their energy expenditure while you are there.
Fourth, the dying may be feeling grief as one thing after another that they had enjoyed doing previously, as well as the role they held in their relationships, has to be given up. Sometimes our care for our dying friends means that we allow them to express their sadness without offering any soothing platitudes or stock answers.
Fifth, the dying are going through the process of letting go. This can be among the more difficult aspects of dying because most of us have valued -- and perhaps even overvalued -- our independence. Letting go is not the same as giving up, but instead "is an active process of trust, an opening up of the self to one's inability to control the future, an active giving over of the self to the care of One beyond human finitude," says Clements. "It is a blessing of personal dependence on others for a while, and on God forever."
It is possible that any one of us could find ourselves suddenly with someone in the very throes of death. Our presence may be the only gift we can give that person in those final moments. However, it is far more likely that we will eventually have the opportunity to be beside someone who is dying over a longer time frame. If you can do that armed with your faith, but also with the knowledge that you do not have all the answers, and you are willing to just walk with that person through the valley a way, you will be a channel through which God can add his blessing and grace to that person's last days.
If life's delicate balance between control and dependence, trust and mistrust, should ever so gently tilt toward letting go at any point during the dying process, then surely the grace of God has been present. Pastoral care may enable this to happen, but faith is a gift from God.
[3]
[4]
[5] Baruch Halpern (David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murder, Traitor, King, 2001)
[6]
[7] At the same time, the material has some affinity with messianic texts in Isaiah 9 and 11. The scholar Hermann says the whole text is from the period of Solomon. However, some parts of this passage are similar to Isaiah 9 and 11, especially at verses 6, 9, 11-12. Noth will say that the failure to suppress the reference to Solomon giving sacrifices at a high place points to the validity of the verse and the tradition of wisdom associated with him. Scott, however, sees too many similarities with later stories of Esther and Daniel, and thereby suggesting a later date.
[8] Frederick Buechner weighs in on wisdom, saying, “Wisdom is a matter not only of the mind but of the intuition and heart.”
[9] —Donald T. Williams, “Literature for Wisdom,” Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=33-04-020-v.
[10] —Stephen King, Vassar College Commencement address, May 2001.
[11] -- From the O Antiphons
No comments:
Post a Comment